Jharkhand High Court
Tarun Kumar Ram vs Pooja Kumari on 28 January, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
C.M.P. No. 953 of 2023
----
Tarun Kumar Ram, aged about 44 years, son of late Bhagwat Ram,
resident of Mohalla Purani Bazar, Jaseepur Durga Mandap, P.O. and P.S.
Jaseepur, District Mayurbhanj (Odisha) ...... .... ... Petitioner(s)
-- Versus --
Pooja Kumari, wife of Sri Tarun Kumar Ram and daughter of Sri Shambhu
Prasad, resident of Bank Colony Vikash Nagar, Mod Hesal, PO Hesal, PS
Pandra, District Ranchi ...... .... ...Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Pandey Niraj Roy, Advocate
For the Opp.Party :- Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Ganesh Ram, Advocate
----
8/28.01.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well
as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole opposite party.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
for quashing of the order dated 01.12.2022 passed in Original Suit No.602 of
2021 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi whereby he has
been pleased to allow the application dated 15.7.2022 filed under section 24 of
the Hindu Marriage Act holding that the wife is entitled to get maintenance
pendente-lite and the husband has been directed to pay Rs.8,000/- per month
to wife and Rs.2000/- per month to the son from the date of filing of the case
i.e. 22.9.2021 along with the arrears of maintenance pendente-lite within six
month in equal installments from the date of passing of the order and the
litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.
2. Mr. Pandey Niraj Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner and the opposite party got their marriage
solemnized on 24.11.2013 and out of said wed-lock a child was born on
21.8.2014. The opposite party wife has filed a suit on 22.9.2021 seeking
dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce under section 13(1)(ia) of the
Hindu Marriage Act vide Original Suit No.602 of 2021. The petitioner has filed
his written statement on 11.4.2022 to the plaint in Original Suit No.602 of 2021.
Thereafter the opposite party wife has filed the application on 15.7.2022 under
section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking maintenance and pendente lite
and the expense of proceeding. She claimed that at the time of marriage the
husband was a B.E and had a good income and she used to incur Rs.1,300/-
per month as school fees, Rs.9,101/- as annual fees of the child, Rs.5,000/-
towards clothes and medicines and Rs.10,000/- per month towards her
expenses. She claimed Rs.35,000/- per month as total maintenance pendente
lite. He submits that a rejoinder to the petition was filed by the husband who is
the petitioner denying the claims. He submits that the plea was taken that at
the time of marriage the petitioner's earning was good but now he is
unemployed and dependent upon his mother's pension for his own survival. He
submits that it was also pointed out that the wife without any rhyme and
reason started living separately and absurd demand of Rs.35,000/- by way of
maintenance pendente lite has been sought. The wife is working as LIC agent
whereby she has been earning well. In this background, he submits that the
learned court has not considered the present status of the petitioner who is an
unemployed person and pulling his livelihood by way of running a mobile repair
shop and to buttress his such arguments he draws the attention of the Court to
the Income Certificate issued by the Government of Orissa, Office of Tehsildar
and submits that his annual income is Rs.One lac only. In this background, he
submits that the learned court has erroneously passed the order and the
maintenance amount is at higher side and the learned court has not considered
the living standard of both the sides and has passed the order which is not in
accordance with law. He submits that the said order may kindly be quashed.
He further submits that in the order, the leraned court has taken note of the
fact that his annual income is Rs.one lac and inspite of that the said order has
been passed.
3. Mr. Prabhash Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole
Opposite party vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that the learned
court has allowed a very meagre amount for maintenance of Rs.8,000/- for wife
and Rs.2,000/- for the child. He submits that till date, the petitioner has not
paid any single penny to the opposite party/wife and she has been put to
harassment. The child is now 10 years old and studying in Class -IV in a school
at Ranchi. He submits that the child is also being maintained by the wife and
she has also to incur expenses on his studies and the husband and wife are
living separately since 19.01.2019 when the wife /opposite party was driven out
from her matrimonial home after taking over all her jewelleries and she was
also assaulted and forced to leave her matrimonial home. The petitioner
/husband is having B.E degree and has good income and at the time of
marriage, the petitioner /husband had disclosed his monthly income as Rupees
One Lakh and he has denied the statement that now he is earning Rs.One lac.
He relied in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, reported in (2021) 2
SCC 324 wherein at paragraph nos.78 and 81 it has been held as under:
"78. The factors which would weigh with the Court inter alia are
the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependant
children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally
qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of
income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain
the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her
matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her
marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the
marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment
opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after
adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-
working wife
81. A careful and just balance must be drawn between all
relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in
matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the
respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was
accustomed to in her matrimonial home. The maintenance amount
awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two
extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so
extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the
respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to
penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that
the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort."
4. Relying on the above judgment he submits that there is no illegality in
the impugned order and the learned court has rightly passed the order.
5. It is admitted position that the marriage was solemnized between the
parties on 24.11.2013 and out of said wed-lock a child was born on 21.8.2014
and the wife has instituted the Original Suit No.602 of 2021 for divorce under
Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner herein has filed the
written statement and thereafter a petition under section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act was filed by the wife by which demand was made for a sum of
Rs.35,000/- for the reasons disclosed in the said petition which was replied by
way of rejoinder by the petitioner and thereafter the learned court has passed
the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay Rs.8,000/- to the wife and
Rs.2,000/- to the child.
6. It is well settled that there is no set formula for fixing the amount of
maintenance. It has, in the very nature of things, to depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case. Some scope for leverage can, however, be always
there. The Court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective
needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable
expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and
statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance
fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort
considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived
with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the
prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be
excessive or extortionate.
7. If the wife has no source of income, it is the obligation of the husband to
maintain her and also the child out of the marriage on the basis of the
provisions contained in the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Her
right to claim maintenance fructifies on the date of the filing of the petition for
divorce under the Act. Having thus fixed the date as the filing of the petition for
divorce it is not always that the court has to grant the maintenance from that
date. The court has discretion in the matter as to from which date maintenance
under Section 24 of the Act should be granted. The discretion of the court
would depend upon multiple circumstances which are to be kept in view while
passing such order.
8. The Certificate issued by the Office of the Tehsildar, Jassipur was relied
to prove the income of the petitioner who is husband to the tune of Rs.One lac.
No income tax return has been filed before the learned court and merely noting
that fact of income in the order it is not proved beyond the reasonable doubt
that the earning of the petitioner was only Rs.One lac. Where the diverse claims
made by the parties some conjectures and guess-work by the court is
permissible. Attempt by the husband to conceal his true income would justify
adverse inference by the court. At the time of marriage itself he was earning
Rs.One lac and now he has tried to make out the case that he is earning Rs.one
lac present also whereas he is having B.E degree which has been disclosed in
the content of Annexure-5 which is on affidavit by the petitioner and only a sum
of Rs.8,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively has been allowed.
9. In view of the above discussion and considering the amount, the Court
finds that for maintenance at least that amount is required including the study
of the child. No case of interference is made out.
10. Accordingly, C.M.P. No.953 of 2023 is dismissed.
11. Pending petition if any also stands disposed of accordingly.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/
A.F.R.
